"
Historian Mark Humphries of Canada’s Memorial University of Newfoundland says that newly unearthed records confirm that one of the side stories of the war—the mobilization of 96,000 Chinese laborers to work behind the British and French lines on World War I’s Western Front—may have been the source of the pandemic.
Writing in the January issue of the journal War in History, Humphries acknowledges that his hypothesis awaits confirmation by viral samples from flu victims. Such evidence would tie the disease’s origin to one location."
I guess another couple of dots Humphries is going to need to connect is the transmission path from somewhere in China to start infections in Camp Funston (now Fort Riley) in central Kansas in March 1918.
Apparently, a researcher found preserved lung tissue from 100 years ago, and is able to use it to study mutations to understand how the second wave in late 1918 was so much more virulent (apologies for linking to The Atlantic, which is paywalled for most):
Must be fake news then… Probably Humphries invented the whole thing… I guess we’ll see if anything else comes of the story in the future.
When did Fox buy them?
That’s like the religious wingnuts who argue that the Theory of Evolution isn’t true because the absence of verified contraindications doesn’t make it a proved fact.
The (current) generally accepted theory is the virus was a swine/bird hybrid which originated in Haskell County, Kansas, migrated with troops being marshalled at Camp Funston, was taken with them to the Western Front where is seemed to have mutated and a more virulent form was exported from Europe with returning soldiers.
Whatever the merits of Humphries research, and it might yet be proven true, it’s being promoted here as a racist, xenophobic dog whistle.
Now my Google-fu might well be lacking, but humour me if you will and do a search on
“mark humphries historian spanish flu”
The top hit I get it is this article, published by National Geographic on 24th January 2014.
24 Jan 2014 — Historian Mark Humphries of Canada’s Memorial University of Newfoundland says that newly unearthed records confirm that one of the side …
I think the source for the NG article may be this paper by Mark Osborne Humphries dated 8th January 2014.
So when the OP quotes correctly:
newly uncovered records
…
Writing in the January issue…
… the fact the article is not in the implied January 2021 edition is a misfortunate oversight.
Googling further and described as “flu historian Mark Humphries, director of the Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario” Humphries gets another gig in the Canada’s History May 2020. The man likely knows his stuff. We still wait on verification of his theory.
Forgive me if I don’t think a link to a 7 year old article citing the opinion of a single historian is in any way “new info” or is going to lead to us amending history. If any new evidence supporting this theory had been uncovered in the past 7 years, we would likely have heard of it.
The title of the OP is misleading at best, and IMO, it’s clear what the reasons are for it being posted now.
No I can’t because that wasn’t included. That the reason I posted the first article it had more information. What I should have done was include both articles in the op. How bout a search and if I find where their tissue sources came from I’ll update my post. Its too bad this info wasn’t incuded in this article.
DATE PUBLISHED MAY 24 2021
I read an interesting article on gene sequencing on the Spanish Flu. Now I’ve provided links to hopefully satisify ‘the critics’. The original link included the history and I did not notice the date on link in the op.
“Hundred-year-old lung tissue is incredibly hard to find. Sébastien Calvignac-Spencer, a virologist at the Robert Koch Institute, in Berlin, came across the samples in this newest study in a stroke of luck. A couple of years ago, he decided to investigate the collections of the Berlin Museum of Medical History of the Charité. He wasn’t looking for anything in particular, but he soon stumbled upon several lung specimens from 1918, a year he of course recognized as a notable one for respiratory disease” https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/618972/_